Re: [-empyre-] a few questions

[Mitchell Whitelaw <mitchell.whitelaw@canberra.edu.au>]

> Regarding metacreation and authorship:

Good questions all, and I don't offer answers... my only comment would 
be that in my research it seemed that different artists approached 
these systems with different notions of authorship. William Latham for 
example writes of being the "father" of his works, even if someone else 
is using his software to make them. On the other hand Karl Sims is more 
relaxed about turning his system over to the public in an 
installation...

In general I think artists will try to have it both ways - to both 
claim and disclaim authorship. For some metacreation is an 
amplification of creative will, for others it's a surrendering of 
creative will.

I don't think authorship per se is up for grabs (if it's still up for 
grabs at all)

cheers,

Mitchell

> * Which is to be considered the work of art, the
> first creation, the metacreation, or both?
>
> * Considering the metacreation is not directly
> created by the artist but by his/her creation,
> who is the author of the metacriation? The author
> of the first creation or the first creation itself?
>
> * If one person/group creates a piece of software
> capable of generating metacreations, and another
> person/group uses that piece of software to
> generate new creations, who can claim authorship?
> The first person/group? The second person/group?
> The software itself?
>
> * Should metacreation surpass the concept of
> authorship? And what concept would replace it?
>
>
> Nemo Nox
> http://www.nemonox.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre